Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 333
I.
2
Upon Eaton's death in 1981, some of his United Broadcasting stock was
distributed to various legatees under his will. The balance of the stock,
constituting a majority interest, passed to Suburban Bank, d/b/a Sovran
Bank/Maryland, as Trustee of a residuary trust established under Eaton's will.
In 1986, Continental learned that the Trustee was seeking to sell its United
Broadcasting stock. Ensuing discussions made clear that the Trustee and United
Broadcasting did not consider Continental's right of first refusal to be triggered
by a sale of the control stock of United Cable's grandparent corporation. In May
1987, Continental filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In
particular, Continental sought a declaration that the transfer of a controlling
interest in United Broadcasting would indirectly effect a transfer of United
Cable's control stock and would thus trigger Continental's right of first refusal.
Without deciding the issue, the district court granted summary judgment to
United Broadcasting and the Trustee, holding that the right of first refusal
violated the Maryland rule against perpetuities.
Continental appealed the district court's order. This court held that
Massachusetts substantive law applied to the Settlement Agreement and that the
right of first refusal, judicially limited to twenty-one years, did not violate the
rule against perpetuities. 873 F.2d 717. We held also that Continental's right
had "matured" when the Trustee agreed to sell6 United Cable's grandparent
company, United Broadcasting, and remanded for further proceedings.7
The district court issued an order on November 30, 1989, requiring the Trustee
to tender United Cable stock, rather than fixed assets, to Continental. Moreover,
in an attempt to avoid the incurrence of the tax, while keeping Continental's
purchase on the "same terms," the court ordered Continental's right of first
refusal to be made conditional upon closing the transaction with UBC
Acquisition. To implement this, the court ordered the sellers to include a
provision in the Stock Purchase Agreement that would require UBC
On December 12, 1989, Continental moved the court for reconsideration and
clarification of the November 30 order. Two weeks later, the appellees notified
the district court that the Trustee had terminated the Stock Purchase
Agreement, effective December 21, 1989, for reasons unrelated to Continental's
preemptive rights, and requested the court to dismiss Continental's action as
moot. Subsequently, the district court ruled the action moot and dismissed the
case.II.
10
Continental appeals the court's dismissal of its action, arguing that its right of
first refusal had vested and could not be revoked. The Trustee and United
Broadcasting cross-appeal, arguing that the district court erred by ordering the
Trustee to tender 52.66% of United Cable's stock to Continental. In addition,
they argue that the district court erred by ordering them to tender United
Cable's control stock at the same price and terms offered in the Stock Purchase
Agreement, rather than at market price. If we affirm the district court's
dismissal, we need not reach the crossappeal. Therefore, we will first address
Continental's appeal.
A.
11
Continental argues that its right of first refusal vested and became enforceable
when the Trustee agreed to transfer United Cable's control stock to UBC
Acquisition; therefore, its right could not be defeated by subsequent
cancellation of the Stock Purchase Agreement. Though the district court did not
hold that termination of the Stock Purchase Agreement permanently
extinguished Continental's right of first refusal, the court held that the right of
first refusal was not presently enforceable because the triggering event, i.e., the
Stock Purchase Agreement, was no longer in existence.9
12
Whereas we held in our earlier opinion that the sale of a controlling interest in
United Broadcasting stock triggered Continental's right of first refusal, we did
not consider whether Continental's right could be revoked, once it had been
triggered.10
13
15
B.
16
Because we reverse the district court's dismissal, we must also consider the
cross-appeal. The Trustee and United Broadcasting argue that the district court
erred in ordering a tender of 52.66% of United Cable's stock to Continental.
The present day United Cable consists of subsidiaries doing cable business in
Vermont and other areas; in 1975, when the Settlement Agreement was signed,
United Cable was comprised only of the Manchester cable system. Therefore,
cross-appellants argue that Continental's right of first refusal should be limited,
and a proper tender should be of the control stock of a newly-formed
subsidiary, consisting only of Manchester cable system assets.
17
court's reasoning.
18
The parties made a bargain in 1975 that could have limited the right of first
refusal to certain stock or assets. The parties could reasonably have foreseen
that United Cable would expand and grow; alternatively, United Broadcasting
could have prevented United Cable from expanding beyond its Manchester area
assets. To deny Continental the right of first refusal set forth in the agreement
would deprive it of the benefit of its bargain.
C.
19
The Trustee and United Broadcasting argue further that, under the terms of the
1975 Settlement Agreement, the tender of United Cable's control stock should
be at market price, taking into account the tax consequences and producing the
same net benefit as the sale to UBC Acquisition would have yielded. Crossappellants argue that a sale to Continental based on a simple pro rata allocation
of the United Cable component of the Stock Purchase Agreement would result
in a corporate level income tax that would decimate the payment to be received
by the sellers.
20
The district court agreed that, under the current tax laws, the proposed sale to
UBC Acquisition would be essentially tax-free; on the other hand, a sale of
United Cable stock directly to Continental would force United Broadcasting to
incur several million dollars in income tax. On that basis, the court perceived
an apparent conflict between two provisions of the Settlement Agreement. One
provision allowed Continental to exercise its right of first refusal by paying "the
same ... price or consideration and terms" as offered by a third party buyer;
another provision required Continental to offer the seller the "same ... terms."
Thus, even if Continental offers the same price, terms, and conditions that UBC
Acquisition offered, the net benefit to be received by the Trustee after payment
of the tax would be less than the net benefit to be received from UBC
Acquisition, which would not be reduced by an income tax.
21
23
24
Nevertheless, the appellees' concern for the Trust beneficiaries is well taken,
for the beneficiaries cannot be required to accept promissory notes from
Continental that are of lesser value than those that were offered by the third
party in the larger transaction. The 1975 Settlement Agreement clearly states
that the sellers "shall tender said property for sale to Continental for the same
... price or consideration and terms as" offered to the third party. The Settlement
Agreement states further that if the tendering party, i.e., United Cable or Eaton,
notifies Continental within seven days after receiving Continental's offer that it
"does not believe that Continental's stated offer is in an amount fairly
equivalent to the fair value of the price or consideration payable by said third
person ..., then in such event, ... the question shall be referred by action of
either party for determination by an impartial arbitrator...."
25
We see the solution to the appellees' concerns in the language of the Settlement
Agreement itself. Disagreement over the equivalent value of the tender should
be referred to an arbitrator.
26
Therefore, Continental's action is not moot and we reverse the district court's
dismissal thereof. We affirm the court's order that United Broadcasting must
tender to Continental control stock of present-day United Cable, i.e., United
Cable as it existed at the time the Stock Purchase Agreement was signed.
Finally, we remand to the district court for entry of an order consistent with this
opinion.
27
Eaton was the sole owner of United Broadcasting, which owned Friendly
Broadcasting Company, Inc. Friendly Broadcasting Company owned United
Cable
(1) Before United (including anyone acting on behalf of United) shall effect or
commit to effect any sale or transfer of System Assets ... or commit to effect
any sale or transfer of the Control Stock to any third person or persons, United
or Eaton as the case may be, shall give written notice to Continental describing
and naming the person or persons to whom the transfer is proposed, the price or
consideration to be received for such transfer and all of the other terms of the
proposed transaction as are relevant and shall tender said property for sale to
Continental for the same (except as hereinafter qualified) price or consideration
and terms as described in the notice....
(2) ... If the price or consideration described in the First Refusal Notice and
Tender as being receivable from the proposed third person transferee was to be
in whole or in part in form other than cash, the price to be payable by
Continental upon its exercise of said first refusal tender shall be solely in cash
and in an amount which is fairly equivalent to the fair market value of the price
or consideration payable by said third person or persons....
....
(4) If United and Continental cannot agree as to any question of valuation or
other question arising under subparagraphs (2) or (3) above or as to the
meaning of any other provisions of this Agreement, the question shall be
determined by an impartial arbitrator to whom the question may be referred by
any party hereto.
6
On December 28, 1988, prior to oral argument, the Trustee signed a "Stock
Purchase Agreement," committing it to sell the control stock of United
Broadcasting to a third party, UBC Acquisition Corporation (UBC
Acquisition). UBC Acquisition is not a party to this action
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated the ability of a corporation to engage
in tax-free liquidation by stepping up the tax basis of assets and selling them
without tax implications
The court noted also that if a new sale were proposed, Continental should again
be offered its contractual right of first refusal. Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub.L.
No. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (1986)
10
11
Because the Stock Purchase Agreement was signed before a tender was made
to Continental, it is unnecessary to decide whether Continental's right may have
vested earlier